Re: New globals for PUT and DELETE

On 14 October 2014 14:46, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Mike Dugan <mike@mjdugan.com> wrote: > >> >> On October 14, 2014 at 9:31:15 AM, Andrea Faulds (ajf@ajf.me) wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Oct 2014, at 14:27, Kristopher <kristopherwilson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > $_HTTP_REQUEST_BODY and $_HTTP_QUERY_STRING for nostalgia's sake. >> >> Ew, non-superglobals. >> >> But $_REQUEST_BODY and $_QUERY_STRING are a bit lengthy. Perhaps $_QUERY >> (for $_GET) and $_BODY (for $_POST)? Then the variable set finally makes >> sense, but isn’t too long: >> >> * $_QUERY - query string parameters >> * $_BODY - request body parameters >> * $_REQUEST - query string and request body parameters >> >> Makes more sense than $_GET and $_POST. >> >> Any objections? >> >> -- >> Andrea Faulds >> http://ajf.me/ >> >> >> +1 for this. This would hopefully also eliminate the confusion for new >> developers (or not-so-new developers) who don’t quite understand that $_GET >> and $_POST don’t strictly relate to their HTTP verbs of the same name. >> >> -- >> >> Mike Dugan >> >> mike@mjdugan.com >> > > That could work, though the BC breakage will be extreme. I'm not sure if > that's worth it even in a major version increment. On the other hand, > making $_PUT and $_DELETE available wouldn't break anything and wouldn't > require re-training for devs. ...but is also the wrong solution. It's not scalable, and the only sensible way to implement them would be as aliases of $_POST, because they would contain the same data. How does this fundamentally differ from $_BODY (or whatever)?